The Glade 4.0

I understand the new mods are working on soem forum rules. I figured I'd make a thread so all us peons can get our 2 cents in.

Here's the rules I'd write if it were me:

1. No Flaming
Flaming is comments of a clearly inflammatory nature, other than personal attacks. Flaming encompasses a wide variety of possible statements, but generally it is anything that ges beyond mere sarcasm, frusteration, or rudeness. It is behavior so hostile that productive discussion is ended even though the statement technically pertains to the issue at hand. No getting around this with comments like "I'd say X but that would be flaming."

2. No Hijacking
Stick to the topic at hand. This doesn't preclude using examples, but getting caught up in the example is a form of hijacking. Pointing out an inconsistancy between one topic and another is not hijacking so long as the discussion of the inconsistancy pertains to the thread topic.

3. No personal attacks
Personal attacks include direct insults aginst the person, as well as attempts to divert the topic of a thread onto the person and their personal situation, as well as starting a thread directed at a person. See also the "no getting around it" part of "flaming" above.

4. No Trolling
Trolling is making unsupported statements in order to provoke flaming or personal attacks from the board at large. Being unable to support an argument, or doing so poorly is not trolling; it happens when a person makes no attempt to support a position, or supports it with nothing better than "that's how I feel" AND the position is inflammatory to the board in general. Note that trolling does not excuse flaming or personal attacks, but it may be a mitigating circumstance.

5. No Dismissals
Dismissing someone else's points as talking points, racist, insanity, irrational, illogical, or absurd without giving an explaination of why it is <insert term here> and why that means it isn't valid is not acceptable. Note that failure to provide supporting evidence is sufficient reason to dismiss a point, as long as its explained why whatever evidence is given does not support the point.

6. No Spurious Strawmen Claims
If you claim anothe rposter has constructed a strawman, it is mandatory to explain why this is so. Keep in mind that minor semantic differences between your point and their summation of it are not strawman attacks, nor are extensions of your point when a logical connection can be shown. Strawman attacks require significant changes so that the argument is a caricature, exxageration, or distortion. If you claim a strawman attack, and alter your own argument after the fact by editing, making a new argument, or adding information, that is a violation as well by virtue of trying to entrap your opponent (i.e. no holding back part of what you want to say to get him to unknowingly distort it.)

7. No Broken Records or Walls of Ignorance
This is dismissing your opponent by ignoring his points completely. If your opponent makes a cricticism of your argument, address it, state you accept it, or state you don't wish to deal with it. Repeating your point over again as if nothing was said is not addressing it. Note that this applies both ways; once you've addressed it, other parties must move on in responce to your counter in the same fashion. If you wish not to participate in the thread any more, or not to respond to a particular poster, that is acceptable as well, but don't cherry-pick what to respond to for a given individual in a given thread.

8. No Rules-Lawyering
The rules are here to give everyone some guidance. The mods will enforce them They are not weapons against other posters like on some boards. We all know the mods will have to exercise subjective judgement because every situation can't be addressed. That's why we have more than one moderator. Behave like an adult and you'll be fine

9. No Stalking
No following a person from thread to thread bringing up issues from the past. Pointing out inconsistency is ok, but confine it to how it pertains to the thread topic. The mere fact that another poster is inconsistent isn't a discussion topic; it's to be used to illustrate the matters at hand only.

10. No Thin Skins
No objecting to someone else's point as "offensive" in and of itself. It's perfectly valid to point this out, but it's not a counter, nor does it obligate them to retract it or change their tactic. Similarly, no accusations of flaming or personal insult based on membership of a group of any kind because someone else discusses it in favorable terms. Finally, no accusations of flaiming when someone has clearly illustrated a problem with your point unless their language is grossly outrageous and unnecessary. Claims of being offended, a victim of flaming or personal insult don't relieve the obligation to respond to factual points.

11. Use of Logical Fallacies
Pointing out fallacious reasoning is perfectly acceptable, as long as the entire fallacy is used; for example Appeal to Authority has exceptions and these should be kept in mind. Posters should also keep in min that Tu Quoque and Argumentum ad Logicum are fallacious as well. Fallacies that are invented for a specific community and are of questionalbe legitimacy such as the Rule 0 Fallacy for roleplaying should be used with caution; if a discussion goes off onto a discussion of the fallacy itself this could be hijacking especially if the fallacy isn't a commonly accepted one in the first place.

12. No Handwaving
This is attempting to claim that a legitimate problem "won't happen/wouldn't happen" without explaination of why it wouldn't, or an attempt to dismiss cited factual problems with a position without explaining why they can be dismissed. It may be that the cited problem is totally absurd; if so explain why in the process of dismissing it.

13. Sourcing
You do not have to cite proof for a claim as a matter of course, but if asked for it you should either link it or provide the information needed to obtain it offline, even if you think it's a source people here can't access. If alluding to information you can't or don't want to reveal, make this clear to allow others to decide whether to accept it. On the flip side, a person relying on their personal knowledge must not be discounted out of hand because they can't link their brain; come up with something to counter it as you would a linked source.

14. Proof
If you make a point, establish it to the best of your ability. Don't demand others disprove it, or prove it for you, or "look it up themself." By the same token, don't attempt to discredit a point by coming up with a zillion alternate hypothesis and then making your opponent disprove them all, then claiming victory when he can't. This isn't the O.J. Simpson Trial. Proof is not a binary condition either; acknowledge the strength or weakness of evidence for points even if it isn't "proven" absolutely. Failing to acknowledge evidence can be a form of Wall of Ignorance.

15 Remember!
This is a discussion board, not a coffee club or debate society. We are not here to make each other feel good, but we also aren't here to crush each other under our heels or for academic reasons. Behave yourself and don't act like a fool.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Seems a lot to take on DE, (I don't even understand what #11 is talking about)

It sounds good but I just can't shake the fact that it seems like a lot of rules for one forum.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Some of those are similar to ones in debate right now. We're probably going to be a bit more lax than that though.

If people haven't learned not to use logical fallacies and think critically, who are we to teach them?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Did you know?
The mods will moderate this forum into extinction.

Fun Fact
I don't actually have one here.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Hahaha, your fun fact made me laugh IRL.

Fun Fact
This is a forum that people use for fun, not debate class.

While I can sympathize with your list DE, and agree with the underlying goals (don't be an ***/idiot when posting) I believe that is WAY too many rules to have to remember or expect that anyone is going to be able to live up to on a social forum.

Furthermore, I think they are far too open to interpretation and bias. I'm looking at a couple threads right now that are pretty much just as inflammatory as before moderation was established. I don't know if it's helping yet.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

The point there isn't to teach people how to properly use them. It's to prevent threads from going of onto a 4 or 5 page tangent when someone tries to point out a fallacy by another person, and the second person then responds that it isn't based on an exception or qualification in the definition.

Essentially it's saying "Move on. Don't refuse to acknowledge a fallacy, or an exception to it and thereby hijak the thread, and especially don't do it with ones that are invented."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I've got one. Slam people that accuse others of breaking the rules, when they really don't understand the rules themselves. I've already seen about three instances when one poster is claiming other people are breaking rules and trying to tell them how they should post.

Don't do that. You aren't a mod. If you think someone is attacking you, report it and let that be it. Personally, I trust the mods opinion and ruling over what you think I or someone else said.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Some of these have some fairly serious issues, from my veiwpoint.


No problem with this one.

People are here to talk. Topic drift can be hard to distinguish from hijacking. Meanwhile, creating a new subject can break the flow of a discussion, and although the mods can split out messages to create a new thread, that might be pushing the boundaries of their volunteer effort.

I would think this rolls into no flaming.

Also okay.

I saw a funny quote the other day, it went something along the lines of "This is not casual conversation. This is the Internet, where becoming informed on a subject takes 10 seconds longing than remaining uninformed." Unfortunately, though, ignorance must hold some basic attraction, due to the large amounts of it in existence. You can't really force somebody to become informed to your satisfaction, and it tends to be ignorance that results in dismissive behavior. I would say if somebody displays this type of behavior, bringing down the banhammer may be overkill.

Again, you can't run around mandating informed opinions. Well, you can, but it's an exercise in futility. If an argument has progressed this far, there is a serious disconnect, and it's probably going to result in flaming and trolling, which are pretty well defined and don't require the moderators to be sophists. Sophist in the classic sense, I mean.

I'm probably going to sound like a broken record here, but again, you can't force informed opinions. I think what you're getting at is that people should be responsible, and behave with some class, tact, and manners. I agree that should be the goal, but I think there should just be a "Class, Tact, and Manners" portion of the official guidelines, under which it says "Have some, *****!", and then let the mods make the judgment calls.

Class, Tact, and Manners.

Class, Tact, and Manners.

This is a minefield.

I don't want to require the moderators to be sophists. I'm fairly certain that the end result of this chain of events will be flaming, so...

Class, Tact, and Manners.

Ah, the Burden of Proof. Yes, any demands for evidence or corroboration must be met by the challenged party, not the challenger. If you cannot back up your claims, you shouldn't make them in the first place. But I do not think making unsupported claims is a punishable offense.

Class, Tact, and Manners.

_________________

You could list them as subsets of the same rule, but they are distinctly different issues.



You'll note that I didn't include any levels of severity or recommended punishments/remedies for violations (they aren't in order of severity either; they're in order that I thought of them). Banning someone for dismissing someone's point is excessive, but if they do this over and over, bogging thread after thread down with it, that's another issue. The idea isn't to force people to become informed, it's if you don't want to address someone's post, don't post in response to them.



Umm.. being informed has nothing to do with misusing the strawman fallacy. We've already got someone here throeing around the term loosely. Arguments don't have to progress far at all to get to this point; it can happen early in the first page.


No, that's trying to dictate style. I don't see any benefit in lumping a bunch of things together under one vague heading, anyhow.



Again, no good reason to lump things together under one vague heading, nor any reason to dictate style, which is what those things are about.



Hardly. This is simply saying that complaints about "offensive" behavior aren't violations of the other rules. Flaming and personal attacks are pretty obvious; this is actually intended to shield the moderators from having to deal with every instance of hurt feelings.



We could probably dispense with this one, but this sort of thing does have a history of hijacking discussions.



Not making the claim in and of itself, no. We do, however, have a long history of people making claims, refusing to back them up, demanding that the opponent find the information themself, and then going right on as if it had been proven. That's not discussion; that's people trying to bludgeon the rest of the board into agreeing with them through fatigue, and it should be an offense.

[/quote]

No. Class, tact, and Manners, is not adequate. It is vague and lumps unrelated things together for no reason other than having fewer specific rules.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

See, here I thought we were all trying to have fun and learn from each other.
Too many rules. If I wanted a syllabus or such strict guidelines, I'd go back to college.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

Fourth Bruce: No. Right, I just want to remind you of the faculty rules: Rule One!

Everybruce: No Poofters!

Fourth Bruce: Rule Two, no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abbos in any way at all -- if there's anybody watching. Rule Three?

Everybruce: No Poofters!!

Fourth Bruce: Rule Four, now this term, I don't want to catch anybody not drinking. Rule Five,

Everybruce: No Poofters!

Fourth Bruce: Rule Six, there is NO ... Rule Six. Rule Seven,

Everybruce: No Poofters!!

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

There's still a segue, though. And it boils down to how hard you want to try to make the volunteer moderators work. Obviously, if in your example, everybody was talking about abortion, and then segued to talking about Iraq, well, the participants were amenable to discussing Iraq. In that situation, just let 'em go. A new subject in another thread will catch their fancy soon enough. If a complete non sequitur results in another few pages of discussion on that, again, everybody was amenable, so I say just let 'em go. I haven't noticed that being an unbearable problem around here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29 seems to support the "flaming is the set, personal attacks are the subset" viewpoint. Say what you want about Wikipedia, and I do, I would rate it as the canonical source for the compiled wisdom of the Internet regarding the Internet.

You'll note that the main culprit has so far not demonstrated a comprehension of logic.

If civility is a style, I don't wanna be right! Or something. But seriously, I don't really care who likes or dislikes who, who knows what they're talking about or not, who is a racist, sexist, marxist, capitalist, etc. Politesse and civility are the extent of my demands for this forum. There is an inflection point where additional rules make things worse.

_________________

I have. You haven't really been involved in the political discussions until we converted to this board though, so that's not surprising. In any case, the fact that a thread gets hijaked into a new topic by a few participants doesn't mean everyone was amenable to it; what it usually means is that everyone else abandons the thread and the original point entirely.



All right, that's fair enough.



I'm aware of that, hence the need for the rule. It's very tempting to toss the strawman fallacy around as soon as someone points out somehing about one's argument one hadn't thought of, or simply because it wasn't clear in the first place. Alternatively, we could just prohibit using the word "strawman" so that people would be forced to explain "No I said X not Y" and actually demonstrate it.



I don't disagree on the basic civility, but the problem is that civility and politeness are an impediment to discussion when people can get away with refusing to discuss a topic by one of the various techniques I mentioned, since they can ver politely keep posting their position, ignoring all challange, and a week later claim they 'proved' it, wearing down the entire board through persistence. There's also the problem that I don't consider callign someone a racist, marxist, homophobe, or calling their position insane or irrational without demonstrating why this is so, to be polite or civil. It's just disguising the name-calling and flaming in more technical-sounding terms.

I don't think we're anywhere close to the point where additional rules hurt, either. Every rule I proposed I've seen on at least one other board.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

"You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist." -- Indira Gandhi

Too many rules kill conversations very quickly. I think I can pose one good rule that could be expertly applied.

Rule 1 - You f**k around, you might get banned.

It's quick, easy to remember, and vague enough to keep those in fear of bannanation under just cause.

_________________
"Once we realize that imperfect understanding is the human condition, there is no shame in being wrong, only in failing to correct our mistakes."
- George Soros

And yet, so very open to moderator bias, personal vendetta, and an uneven application of the rules. The rules should be clear, concise, and the moderators should be responsible for adhering to them and enforcing them fairly regardless of the subject in question.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

We will not be moderating the actual content, apart from keeping it civil. Hijack away, debate logical fallacies until you're blue in the face.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I heard that I was exempt from the rules? Can you comment on that?

_________________
The Dude abides.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Well played.

_________________
The Dude abides.

I don't see how any of that is the case, or why you're so concerned about moderator bias, but it seems appears to be moot at this point.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."